The Deputy General Manager (Hr/Admn) Vs Smt Chandramathi

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADMN) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR/FINANCE) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. Y HARIPRASAD., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. CHANDRAMATHI W/O H V RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO 98, 3RD MAIN 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT ABBIGERE, BENGALURU 560090.

¶18

THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) 'SHRAM SADAN' III CROSS, III MAIN II PHASE, TUMAKURU ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU 560022.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42844-DB WA No. 412 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) 'SHRAM SADAN' III CROSS III MAIN, II PHASE TUMAKURU ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU 560022.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MADANAN PILLAI R., CGC FOR R2 & R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28-07-2022 PASSED IN W.P No. 32210/2017 (L-PG) IN SO FAR AS GRANTING THE 10 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM ON THE DEDUCTED AMOUNT OF Rs.1,84,778/- FROM 01-09-2013 i.e., THE DATE OF RETIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 8 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THIS ORDER, FAILING WHICH THE RESPONDENTS WOULD BE LIABLE TO MAKE PAYMENT AT THE RATE OF 15 PERCENT PER ANNUM UNTIL PAYMENT AND

¶25

ETC.,

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42844-DB WA No. 412 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶32

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32210/2017 (L-PG) insofar as granting of 10% interest per annum on the amount of Rs.1,84,778/- which had been withheld from the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's gratuity. Interest at 10% per annum was directed to be paid from 01.09.2013 i.e., the date of retirement of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

¶33

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the principal amount of gratuity has already been paid and the appeal is filed only with regard to the interest.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42844-DB WA No. 412 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

We notice that the interest under the Payment

¶38

of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short, 'the Act' ) is statutory in nature and that there is no power in this Court to waive such interest. We also notice that Section 7(3A) of the Act

¶39

specifically provides as under:

¶40

"7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.

¶41

(1) xxx

¶42

(2) xxx

¶43

(3) xxx

¶44

(3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under subsection (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify:

¶45

Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.]"

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42844-DB WA No. 412 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In the instant case, there is no contention that

¶49

the delay in payment of gratuity was on account of any fault of the employee. Therefore, the respondent No.1 herein would be entitled, statutorily to the interest notified by the Central Government for repayment of long term deposits.

¶50

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 made available a notification to show that the repo rate of interest at the relevant time was fixed by the Reserve Bank of India at the rate of interest 7.75% in 2013.

¶51

In the above view of the matter, and in view of the fact that the repo rate of interest at the relevant time was fixed by the Reserve Bank of India at 7.75% in 2013. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the rate of interest can be changed to 8%.

¶52

In the above view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of modifying the impugned judgment dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:42844-DB WA No. 412 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

W.P.No.32210/2017 (L-PG) only insofar as granting of

¶57

simple interest at the rate of 10% interest per annum to Simple Interest at the rate of 8% per annum. In all other respects, the impugned judgment of the learned Single

¶58

Judge is affirmed.

¶59

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶60

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶62

BSR

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

The Deputy General Manager (Hr/Admn) v. Smt Chandramathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy General Manager (Hr/Admn) v. Smt Chandramathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Vinay Kumar M.K Vs Sri.Uma Shankar IAS

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt Ashwathamma

Sri. Mahadevaswamy Vs Sri Ramesh

Anne Gowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Chethan K J Vs Smt Sowbhagya B E

Sri. Mohan Vs the Managing Director